James Adam, The Republic of Plato

---

μίαν φύσει κτλ.: ‘created it, in its essential nature, one. So it appears. Shall we then call him the Nature- maker of bed, or something of the sort? It would at all events be fair to do so, since he has made both this and all besides in their essential nature.’ Connected with the notion ‘bed’ (observe the neuter τούτου), there are two makers: (1) its φυτουργός, who makes ἡ φύσει κλίνη, (2) its δημι-ουργός, who makes κλίνη τις, a particular material bed. The first is God— the φυτουργός not only of ‘bed’ but of all else: the second a carpenter. φυτουργός is used by Plato in the peculiar sense of ὁ φύσει-τι ποιῶν, the maker of e.g. the bed-by-nature, the table-by-nature, etc.; and the peculiar form of Glauco's answer (δίκαιον γοῦν κτλ.) shews that he was sensible of the linguistic experiment. Plato's meaning would have been easier for us to catch if (using substantives instead of pronouns), he had said μίαν φύσει κλίνην ἔφυσεν (created one bed-by-nature, cf. VI 501 B τὸ φύσει δίκαιον) and ἐπειδήπερ καὶ φυσει-κλίνην καὶ φύσει-τἄλλα πάντα πεποίηκεν, but what he does write is much more elegant. It seems to me certain <*> φύσις in this passage refers to the essen<*> nature (i.e. the Idea) of the thing in q<*> tion. Schleiermacher, Schneider, <*> Müller, to judge from their translatio<*> held the same view. The English tra<*> lators render the second φύσει ‘by crea<*> (D. and V.) or ‘by the natural proce<*> creation’ (Jowett), but apart from o<*> objections, φύσει surely cannot bea<*> sense so very different from that whi<*> has at the beginning of the argument: <*> 597 B note, where reference is made als<*> Bosanquet's ingenious, but, as I belie<*> wholly mistaken view.

τί αὐτὸν κλίνης κτλ.; For the <*> tive cf. IX 582 C, 585 D, infra 597 E <*> (with J. and C.) Symp. 204 D τί τῶν κα<*> ἐστιν ὁ Ἔρως;